![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi Lithopsian, so if it so "called", please correct the article Surface-mount_technology#Rectangular_passive_components as well. It is the same table I'm using at work and see in multiple references (datasheets etc.). Some examples wanted? No problem: [1], [2], [3] (ooops, unlicensed copy of WP?) and [4], I'm pretty sure, they are not all wrong... Please send me one or more references using this wrong notations, and I will bring you five others for each. Also the referenced table in Surface-mount_technology#Rectangular_passive_components is different to this table. Why do you think it's not a simple error? As mentioned in the edit summary you can yourself easily verify that the 1210 is not identical to 3528. -- Wassertraeger ( talk) 09:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Please take care not to add {{ stub}} to an article like Herrania mariae which already has a specific stub template: it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. Pam D 21:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, Lithopsian. I just came across a new paper ( Wittkowski et al. (2017)) that has a new radius value for HR 5171: 1490 ± 540 R☉, as well as other parameters. Would this be useful for List of largest stars or HR 5171? Loooke ( talk) 22:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Coronae Borealis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the star S Coronae Borealis has been estimated as having around 1.34 times the Sun's mass but 308 times its radius? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Coronae Borealis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S Coronae Borealis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are a great user, and that you deserve a higher place, like being an admin. Thus, I would like to appoint you for adminship, (since you met most of the standards) so what do you think and what do you think of it? I think it will be great. -- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the revert. I was convinced that Nu Persei was an RR Lyrae variable. I have checked the information, which is somewhat contradictory. Instead of speaking here, we should probably discuss this topic in Nu Persei's talk page. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I see you have edited the article to show that the names of the equinoxes are not reversed in the southern hemisphere even though there was no consensus on the talk page to that effect. Sources were even cited that said they are reversed. Yes, it would be convenient if everyone just used the same names, but that just isn't the case. So I am asking if we can please change it back to show that there is some ambiguity in the terms. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Why was the Space Engine image on NGC 479 removed? The file page says something about deleting previous versions but keeping the file. This is very confusing. Can you please explain? And can I re-add it to the article?
Thanks. –
Batreeq (
Talk) (
Contribs)
21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just made a significant reconstruction of the Properties section of the star Antares, and have especially fixed up the size issues, which were fragmented and confusing. Knowing your past edits on such stars, could you at least please double-check my work.
I also removed two terribly poor reference cites given by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat and after reading this [8], there might be some possible 'issues' coming. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 01:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
For your latest edit:
astronomical units
AU = billion km
R☉ (rounded) -> 800 R☉
jumk.de Stars and Planets also says 796 R☉ for Antares, but I did not use it. I think that value on jumk.de was taken from Jim Kaler's stars. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not notice a typo there. Check out the latest edit I made with a verified higher radius. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 00:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
tendentious editing. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I just removed the description of the remaining redirections to NGC objects and added {{R from synonym}} instead. Sorry for not doing that right away! The pages should now be OK for approval. WolreChris ( talk) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Sager Electronics Update Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Sager Electronics was updated before the deletion. I removed all salesy terminolgy and rewrote so not to infringe on copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsmarshall ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits on my article on N11, I had thought that N11 was called the Bean Nebula, I can change my redirect to the relevant article if necessary. D Eaketts ( talk) 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Lithopsian, I have a message about this article on my talk page for you.
D Eaketts ( talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the socks edits being restored.....but be aware he was banned for false numbers. .....I assume you know best and did check the calculations. All the best☺-- Moxy ( talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian.
Thank you for letting me know that you have proposed the deletion of this page. You certainly aren't the first to write that what I put on Wikipedia should be deleted. :) On one of the remaining pages I contributed to, Encryption_software, I was trying to begin an article about a type of encryption that is separate and apart from other types of data at rest encryption.
As you probably know, the largest businesses on earth have been using tape devices to hold their backups for decades - and in the last decade or so it has been commonplace to encrypt the data written to tape. Today there are many software applications that provide this feature for both businesses and consumers, not only writing to tape, but also writing to block storage as well. My belief is that this type of encryption is NOT captured in the other articles.
If you agree, what would be needed to change this from an essay to a Wikipedia article that contains information about this type of encryption?
Regards, User93454235 ( talk) 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my comments to the editor on the change you reverted. What attracted my attention was the numbers were simply wrong; proper motion and precession won't produce that level of change (1900 years, at 1/13th of the precession cycle, won't cause a 15+ degree shift in latitude. Worst case is 47 degree shift in 11000 years). I pursued the reference, but what I found was sufficiently unreliable that I wanted him to take a second look - an archived copy of an adaption from a defunct page, didn't qualify to me as a reliable source. I think we're correct in the article now. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 21:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. I read the page NGC 7419. It says that MY Cephei has a temperature of 2,600 K and a luminosity of 180,000 times brighter than the sun. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, this will give a large radius of 2,090 times that of the sun (or 2.91 billion km), which is larger than UY Scuti and comparable to the Saturn's orbit. Would this be useful for List of largest stars. ZaperaWiki44( ✉/ Contribs) 14:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up... I completely forgot about these (there's only ~400). Anything not assessed by now (1.5 years later) probably won't be anytime soon. I'll go through them when I need a change of pace from current projects. Could use the help if you're willing. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Lithsopian, After you nominated the page Ripple pictures for deletion I moved it to Tabula scalata. This term seems relatively common and has some decent results in a Google Books search. I hope you can agree and will state so in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple pictures that has just been relisted. Joortje1 ( talk) 15:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Caesalpinia mimosoides, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 17:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments on this draft article. I'm happy for the article to be created directly if that's permissible. I have created articles before, but just following the (so-called) Help pages led me to the current position! How do I move it - just delete the {{Afc submission ... } lines at the top and bottom? An alternative strategy: do you know anyone in the AfC team who could expedite approval? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 05:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits on Proportion (mathematics) page, giving context as the reason. I suggest you going beyond this petty "reason" and consider my edits calmly. Check the algebra textbook reference. Check the Korean and Japanese pages. The edits I made are completely in line with other wikis, and the name of the page directly corresponds to the name of the concept. Mikus ( talk) 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please reconsider your personal policy with regard to misleading or incorrect redirections of pharmaceuticals. It is a very dangerous practice to knowingly confuse two distinctly different molecules. Not only is this an ethical issue there could be a other repercussions that undermine the reputation of Wikipedia. Get some advice from a relevant health practitioner if you are not sure, I certainly did. Dsmatthews ( talk) 04:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
What do you think about the article so far? I divided it into sections. However, I do need help with the characteristic section. Anything I can add in the section (if so, feel free to bullet list it). Just curious. LovelyGirl7 talk 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian. I noticed you've extensively contributed to a number of high-quality astronomy articles. If you'd be interested in putting any through external peer review and academic publication, let me know. The WikiJournal of Science dual-publishes articles both as a stable PDF, and into Wikipedia to benefit from the rigours of formal peer review, as well as the extreme reach of the encyclopedia (e.g. The Cerebellum). Anyway, let me know if you're interested. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 06:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for Capella, "the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. Sorry for my edits on VY Canis Majoris and List of largest stars. I didn't move VY CMa to the top because I wanted but because there is a paper claiming this star as the largest known star but it supports the 1420±120 R☉.
In addition, the papers (possibly not all) are more reliable than Wikipedia and the websites that quote it. If the doc says VY CMa is the largest, it could still be the largest. As for example, UY Scuti being the largest star is unreferenced (possibly WP:OR) and the sites saying it is the LS are not reliable as they quote Wikipedia as a reliable source. So, that might be a reason why we have to move VY Canis Majoris to the top. Should we move VY CMa to the top with the former 1,800–2,100 R☉ (1,708 < 2,100) or it stays at the same top as KY Cygni (1,420)? ZaperaWiki44( ✉/ Contribs) 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize from the incorrect edit, I misread the article, I immediately reverted from a computer at the same time you did as I noticed my mistake immediately. I will refrain from editing without solid information on the subject. I wish to ensure that this is not seen as vandalism but an attempt to make a correct contribution. Please revise my edits, referring to "continues" and "This data is from", Is this gramatically correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.1.76 ( talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Could I prevail on you to give me a quick sanity check on this edit to 26 Draconis? I added a comment about a week ago in the Talk:26 Draconis page, but evidently nobody is watching it. So I was bold and made a questionable edit. I'm somewhat leery of committing the cardinal sin of WP:OR here, saying a cited source is incorrect, so I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes. I've found multiple sources for coordinates of 26 Draconis and Gliese 685, all with separations in the 12-14 arc minute range. At least some of the variance is the different epoch for the sources, the original Hipparcos values are somewhat different than the Hipparcos II values available on Vizier.
Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 00:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest shown for articles about Slavic spirits. I have been trying to sketch a way to put an order into all those small, badly written, and totally unsourced articles. I invite you to take part in the discussions which are unfolding here.-- Eckhardt Etheling ( talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you propose I move/redirect CSDP to Common Security and Defence Policy? I had already proposed the move at the CSDP page's talk page. - Ssolbergj ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw your contributions on RSGC1 where you added the 363,000 L☉ for RSGC1-F02 for example but I cannot see this value in the paper (It says log(Lbol/L⊙) = 5.56). It was probably calculated from a certain method (not by radius and temperature). Maybe you know how to do and I (really) need the formula how to calculate it to improve the Westerlund 1 page. 88.188.215.39 ( talk) 09:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, ISO currency code, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 09:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I got a notification that, "The page Vaginal intercourse has been reviewed." Sorry to bother you, but the notification gives little to no information and I'm curious. Vaginal intercourse is a redirect that has been around since 2005. I don't know whether the page was inspected, surveyed, examined, or critically evaluated. Wikipedia:Reviewing has eleven internal links. Would you mind telling me about your review? Hyacinth ( talk) 02:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You undid my correction to the distance to the LMC. I'd like to argue against that.
On page 690 of the "The Hubble Constant" (2010) citation there is a reference to a 2006 calculation that agrees with 18.41 (±0.1), however in section 13.1.5, on page 684 in the last paragraph it clearly states "The W(V,VI) Wesenheit function gives a minimized fit between the Galactic and the LMC Cepheids corresponding to a true distance modulus of μ(LMC)o = 18.44 ± 0.03 mag. Correcting for metallicity (see Section 3.1.3) would decrease this to 18.39 mag. [...] a newly revised systematic error on the distance to the LMC of 3% (or ± 0.06 mag)"
Unless I am sorely mistaken this suggests that the newer measurement is indeed 18.39±0.06 and you are incorrect to suggest that the value is acceptable at 18.41.
Regardless, 18.39±0.06 entirely falls into the error margin of the 2006 value.
If newer data is available elsewhere that counteracts this and supports 18.41 then I'll accept that, but for now, I believe the change is in error and I implore you to read the relevant sections of the journal.
Finally, you claimed the abstract of the source being discussed contains the 18.41 value and this is a wholly false claim. The abstract on the front page of the copy of the document I retrieved from annualreviews.org (requires institutional sign-in) makes no reference to the LMC at all, speaking only on the Hubble constant. 51.9.11.10 ( talk) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. there,The problem is that Moa-priset is a separate article but it has been simply redireced to another article by changing the path, what is your suggestion? SalmanZ ( talk) 14:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Heya, can you point me to where you got the Gaia DR2 data for this star? I've trolled through VizieR for a while and can't find anything that matches properly. That change in parallax changes the distance upwards by almost four times... — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand that there is no DR1 information on KH15D, but the Gaia website ( https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Miscellaneous/sec_credit_and_citation_instructions/) states:
"If you have used Gaia DR2 data in your research, please cite both the Gaia mission paper and the Gaia DR2 release paper:
• Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016): Description of the Gaia mission (spacecraft, instruments, survey and measurement principles, and operations); • Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018b): Summary of the contents and survey properties."
I'm only following the rules when I added back the "gaia ref1"
Thank you, as always, for cleaning up my mistakes on pages like PDS 70. I had one question for you - I've noticed a couple of times now that you use HotCat to add a single category, and do this multiple times (for multiple edits). Genuinely out of curiosity, why do you do this instead of adding all 3-5 and then saving the page at once? Primefac ( talk) 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Dean9901 has again moved the Alpha Herculis article to Rasalgethi (binary) as a minor edit (! - that shouldn't be allowed), despite your earlier reversal etc. I tried to undo it myself, but was unable to "because it involves content outside the main slot", whatever that means. How do we escalate this to get it reversed? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
While Etymology of Szczecin was (for a short time) an article, I nominated it for deletion, but while I was filling the Twinkle nomination you reverted it back to the redirect, and now the nomination article has a redirect as a target. Would you mind if I restore the article text so that we could properly discuss how much the article is appropriate and whether it needs to be redirected? I tried to speedy my nomination, but already one user commented, and it is not anymore possible. Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hei Lithopsian, the page Bilingualism exist in other wikis. Please, add references and sources, but do not reverse unnecessarily these editions. Rodinelson Nivaeldo da Silva ( talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Good morning, Lithopsian. I saw your reversion at my edit in Constellation. You justified it as being "almost unintelligible". Were you referring to the part "separated by archs of right ascensions and declinations and grouped by asterisms of their historically most important stars"? Because if it is so, it is not "unintelligible": it is the scientific concept of constellation in an astrophysicist's terms. If there's any problem with my English, I fully welcome grammar corrections. But if the misunderstandings were related to the terminology, then they're unjustified, because they're correct and were simply even copied from another article (and properly sourced). If you were referring to neither of these, then what part of my edition did you find "unintelligible"? Thanks for your attention. EleassarBR ( talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir Lithopsian, This page refers to a recent discovery made and published, on magnetic fields using the device ferrolens and is apart from the ferrolens page because its potential significance for physics in general and academic research and development.
It suggests the discovery of magnetic monopoles in essence inside every magnet. This is important and the Wikipedia community must be aware and can not be dismissed from this information. This page deserves its own space and I was in the process to evolve and expand it.
Please reinstate and revert the page "Quantum field of magnet" in its previous state.
If the revert will not be undertaken by the Senior editor or contacted by him/her in the next 6hours period I will revert the page so it can be further edited and expanded in the near future. I will keep the physics-stub category though until the page is expanded sufficiently.
Kind Regards,
Markoulw
Markoulw ( talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Threats, nice. That's not how WP works, I'm afraid. You are welcome to revert changes made by any other editor, but the recommended course of action is bold, revert, discuss and not edit war - in other words, when someone reverts one of your edits, don't get into a war about it, but open the subject for discussion. The correct place for such discussion is the article talk page, although the talk page of a newly-created article is unlikely to be visited. A more formal approach would be to reinstate the article and open an AfD, a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Possible outcomes would include a redirect rather than an outright delete - or keeping the article. Before going that way, you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's definition of notability which may not conicide with your own personal feelings or the normal expectations in your field. Just for the record, please read WP:COI and consider its implications for you, as explained in more detail at the top of your talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Senior Editor Lithopsian,
No. Respect. I was merely waiting for your response to my explanations of why this separate page is important before I do anything. Sorry, to see that you feel that you were threatened by me . On the contrary my intentions were to respect your decision and wait for your reconsideration after the explanations I have given to you, but I can not wait indefinitely. I now have an expanded version of the page "Quantum field of magnet" I will update it with and kindly ask you to review and reconsider.
Kind Regards,
Markoulw Markoulw ( talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI, your recent edit with citation bot assistance produced reductive useless title information, [11]. I've filed a bug report against that error at citation bot. Obviously "A 2-3 billion year old major merger paradigm for the Andromeda galaxy and its outskirts" is not the same as "OUP accepted manuscript", in identifying the journal article being sought. -- 65.94.42.168 ( talk) 05:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you move Rat-shot to Snake shot? I have been unable to do so.-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, could I get your opinion about something? Over at Luhman 16, an editor inserted a personally created image of its proper motion, which works great for that section, but the user insists that it must be the lead image, and is warring to keep it there. I rather feel that the resolved image of the stars themselves is the best representative image for the article. I'm obviously involved at this point and can't take administrative action myself, so I was wondering your thoughts, whether I should pursue this or just give up. — Huntster ( t @ c) 11:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted your edit that removed the article stub I wrote about the soccer coach Gene Klein. I've gone ahead and fixed all links within Wikipedia that link to Gene Klein instead of Eugene V. Klein, and there is also a hatnote on the Gene Klein article pointing to the Eugene V. Klein. However, it's possible that there needs to be a discussion about which person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Gene Klein". Because the businessman's article was titled "Eugene V. Klein", I assumed that "Gene Klein" was just an occasionally-used nickname for him, but I don't know much about him so I'd welcome a move discussion. But, the soccer coach article definitely should continue to exist somewhere -- having coached the fully-professional team Pittsburgh Riverhounds for five years, he definitely passes WP:NFOOTY. Cheers, IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you undid my edit removing the redirect from Wafa field to Waha field. I realize that deleting the redirect leaves Wafa field as a blank page, which is apparently why you undid my edit — but having the first page redirect to the second is incorrect, as they're completely different, and in different parts of Libya (I made this edit because I'm doing oil & gas research work and the fact that the first page redirects to the second screwed me up for like 20 minutes, because I was operating under the mistaken assumption that the two were the same). I don't have time to create a new page for Wafa field — what would be the correct thing to do here? delete the page Wafa field, so that any links to the page are redlinks? CircleAdrian ( talk) 14:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, this is an urgent message the userpage titled User:Joey717. On User:Joey717 there is a category located in the bottom titled Category:People from Winnipeg. Categories are not allowed to add on userpages under WP:USERNOCAT. So go to the user page titled User:Joey717 and remove the People from Winnipeg category. Category are not allowed to add on userpages. This is an urgent message. please do that immediately. Thanks. 2001:569:7C07:2600:C084:6CAA:20CB:AAE ( talk) 02:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
If you review drafts, could you please approve that one? Thank you very much. Joey717 ( talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
What did you mean by 'hardly' when you reverted my edit? 92.17.89.71 ( talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so first off, you said that the 1,180 SR estimate for Beetleguese is an "older value" when it's from 2013. The 955 SR estimate is from 2011. Also, you keep changing HR 5171 A back to 1,315 SR when it's most recently estimated as a 1,490 SR red Super giant. I'll say this one last time. Always go with the smallest value of the most recent estimate. That's all JayKayXD ( talk) 11:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I notice you haven't checked the list of star extremes page in some time, can you go and see to check if it is accurate. Zapera has put VY CMa as the largest which is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faren29 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Noticed NGC 136 is looking rather bare. Can you help me add some stuff to it. AdrianWikiEditor ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the time being for reverting OpenID Foundation page to a redirect page. I started splitting OpenID page as it is messy and too long and making the change to OpenID Foundation to be an independent page rather than a redirect was an attempt but the OpenID page got reverted so OpenID Foundation page became redundant. -- Sakimura ( talk) 18:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Polyamorph. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Prayagraj District, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Polyamorph ( talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you ever have a hankering to buff another star article like Eta Carinae? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. There’s an AfD on Anthony Padilla that could use your participation, as you were involved in the article's redirect. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Padilla Sekyaw (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Wanted to drop a more personal note here and just say that I really appreciate your guidance as I start on the Starbox project. I really need guidance from someone who knows their stuff when it comes to stars and you definitely seem to know a few things. :-p Hopeful that we will be able to team up on this! -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this page. As a very new contributor apart from very old minor edits i would appreciate your review as to its "artistic qualities" as per german wikipedia which is why it is currently a candidate for deletion. Also whether it is in fact neutral. it is my most genuine thorough attempt to be as neutral as possible, which is why I did not put the JAMA quotes to begin with. However they appear to have been necessary to neutralise the article. There are opposing points of view (everyone has bipolar namely) but this is debunked in consensus in Canada and the United States. I note that there has been no edit war engaging this "neutrality for neutralitys sake", and the cognitive biases including "point/counterpoint" and "misleading balance" may come into play here. I really don't want this to occur. I'm very thankful that it so far hasn't. This is why I directly point to the guideline controversy and legal controversy in Australia, and point to the not for profit in Canada who came up with all these controversial "appearing to have been right the whole time" theories. Any thoughts most welcome E.3 ( talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, I'm Doomsdayer520. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Turkish occupied Syria, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Workplace Health and Safety Directive, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 12:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lithopsian: Previously there was a whole article on the Burmese Independence Army (which now redirects to Burma National Army) and a whole article on Burma National Army (which Burma Independence Army redirected too). These two articles covered the exactly same topic of the BIA (later renamed the BNA). I previously simply merged and expanded them under the title Burma Independence Army and made Burmese Independence Army and Burma National Army redirect to it. However I keep being reverted. I tried to move the article in the proper way, but cant since Burma Independence Army already exists as a page. What should I do? -- Havsjö ( talk) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I put in under Burma Independence Army since the organisations most active period and the focus of the article lay on the BIA -- Havsjö ( talk) 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not discuss on the talk page? I'm not communicating via edit comments. Hekerui ( talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Per this change, it's not clear to me that "relating to a place on the other side of the world" is the dominant meaning of "antipodean". At least on Wikipedia, the dominant meaning, if there is one, seems to be "relating to Australia and New Zealand". Of the links pointing to Antipodean (which you mentioned), it looks like every one of them is directly in reference to Australia and New Zealand. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Why. You made this edit [12] wrongly stating: "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation." Yet when I corrected this text "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni ( ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori. [1]". You now claim; "remove misunderstanding again after it was previously reverted", and [User:|151.230.113.97] claims "remove Simbad-specific codename."
Even if you doubt the SIMBAD Vizier data, the name appears here [13]
You wrote the initial text, I correct it, but you now you claim it is not needed?
Either get consensus, revert your edit, or we'll start investigating clear evidence of disruptive editing. 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Yeah... But please have in mind Talk:Satmar too. -- תנא קמא ( talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
A quasi-star is predicted to have formed when the core of a large protostar collapses into a black hole during its formation and the outer layers of the star are massive enough to absorb the resulting burst of energy without being blown away (as they are with modern supernovae). Such a star would have to be at least 1,000 solar masses (2.0×1033 kg). A quasi-star is predicted to have had a maximum lifespan of about 7 million years, [1] after which the core black hole would have grown to about 1,000–10,000 solar masses (2×1033–2×1034 kg).
References
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi Lithopsian, so if it so "called", please correct the article Surface-mount_technology#Rectangular_passive_components as well. It is the same table I'm using at work and see in multiple references (datasheets etc.). Some examples wanted? No problem: [1], [2], [3] (ooops, unlicensed copy of WP?) and [4], I'm pretty sure, they are not all wrong... Please send me one or more references using this wrong notations, and I will bring you five others for each. Also the referenced table in Surface-mount_technology#Rectangular_passive_components is different to this table. Why do you think it's not a simple error? As mentioned in the edit summary you can yourself easily verify that the 1210 is not identical to 3528. -- Wassertraeger ( talk) 09:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Please take care not to add {{ stub}} to an article like Herrania mariae which already has a specific stub template: it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. Pam D 21:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, Lithopsian. I just came across a new paper ( Wittkowski et al. (2017)) that has a new radius value for HR 5171: 1490 ± 540 R☉, as well as other parameters. Would this be useful for List of largest stars or HR 5171? Loooke ( talk) 22:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Coronae Borealis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the star S Coronae Borealis has been estimated as having around 1.34 times the Sun's mass but 308 times its radius? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Coronae Borealis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S Coronae Borealis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are a great user, and that you deserve a higher place, like being an admin. Thus, I would like to appoint you for adminship, (since you met most of the standards) so what do you think and what do you think of it? I think it will be great. -- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the revert. I was convinced that Nu Persei was an RR Lyrae variable. I have checked the information, which is somewhat contradictory. Instead of speaking here, we should probably discuss this topic in Nu Persei's talk page. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I see you have edited the article to show that the names of the equinoxes are not reversed in the southern hemisphere even though there was no consensus on the talk page to that effect. Sources were even cited that said they are reversed. Yes, it would be convenient if everyone just used the same names, but that just isn't the case. So I am asking if we can please change it back to show that there is some ambiguity in the terms. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Why was the Space Engine image on NGC 479 removed? The file page says something about deleting previous versions but keeping the file. This is very confusing. Can you please explain? And can I re-add it to the article?
Thanks. –
Batreeq (
Talk) (
Contribs)
21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just made a significant reconstruction of the Properties section of the star Antares, and have especially fixed up the size issues, which were fragmented and confusing. Knowing your past edits on such stars, could you at least please double-check my work.
I also removed two terribly poor reference cites given by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat and after reading this [8], there might be some possible 'issues' coming. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 01:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
For your latest edit:
astronomical units
AU = billion km
R☉ (rounded) -> 800 R☉
jumk.de Stars and Planets also says 796 R☉ for Antares, but I did not use it. I think that value on jumk.de was taken from Jim Kaler's stars. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not notice a typo there. Check out the latest edit I made with a verified higher radius. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 00:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
tendentious editing. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I just removed the description of the remaining redirections to NGC objects and added {{R from synonym}} instead. Sorry for not doing that right away! The pages should now be OK for approval. WolreChris ( talk) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Sager Electronics Update Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Sager Electronics was updated before the deletion. I removed all salesy terminolgy and rewrote so not to infringe on copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsmarshall ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits on my article on N11, I had thought that N11 was called the Bean Nebula, I can change my redirect to the relevant article if necessary. D Eaketts ( talk) 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Lithopsian, I have a message about this article on my talk page for you.
D Eaketts ( talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the socks edits being restored.....but be aware he was banned for false numbers. .....I assume you know best and did check the calculations. All the best☺-- Moxy ( talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian.
Thank you for letting me know that you have proposed the deletion of this page. You certainly aren't the first to write that what I put on Wikipedia should be deleted. :) On one of the remaining pages I contributed to, Encryption_software, I was trying to begin an article about a type of encryption that is separate and apart from other types of data at rest encryption.
As you probably know, the largest businesses on earth have been using tape devices to hold their backups for decades - and in the last decade or so it has been commonplace to encrypt the data written to tape. Today there are many software applications that provide this feature for both businesses and consumers, not only writing to tape, but also writing to block storage as well. My belief is that this type of encryption is NOT captured in the other articles.
If you agree, what would be needed to change this from an essay to a Wikipedia article that contains information about this type of encryption?
Regards, User93454235 ( talk) 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my comments to the editor on the change you reverted. What attracted my attention was the numbers were simply wrong; proper motion and precession won't produce that level of change (1900 years, at 1/13th of the precession cycle, won't cause a 15+ degree shift in latitude. Worst case is 47 degree shift in 11000 years). I pursued the reference, but what I found was sufficiently unreliable that I wanted him to take a second look - an archived copy of an adaption from a defunct page, didn't qualify to me as a reliable source. I think we're correct in the article now. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 21:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. I read the page NGC 7419. It says that MY Cephei has a temperature of 2,600 K and a luminosity of 180,000 times brighter than the sun. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, this will give a large radius of 2,090 times that of the sun (or 2.91 billion km), which is larger than UY Scuti and comparable to the Saturn's orbit. Would this be useful for List of largest stars. ZaperaWiki44( ✉/ Contribs) 14:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up... I completely forgot about these (there's only ~400). Anything not assessed by now (1.5 years later) probably won't be anytime soon. I'll go through them when I need a change of pace from current projects. Could use the help if you're willing. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Lithsopian, After you nominated the page Ripple pictures for deletion I moved it to Tabula scalata. This term seems relatively common and has some decent results in a Google Books search. I hope you can agree and will state so in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple pictures that has just been relisted. Joortje1 ( talk) 15:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Caesalpinia mimosoides, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 17:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments on this draft article. I'm happy for the article to be created directly if that's permissible. I have created articles before, but just following the (so-called) Help pages led me to the current position! How do I move it - just delete the {{Afc submission ... } lines at the top and bottom? An alternative strategy: do you know anyone in the AfC team who could expedite approval? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 05:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits on Proportion (mathematics) page, giving context as the reason. I suggest you going beyond this petty "reason" and consider my edits calmly. Check the algebra textbook reference. Check the Korean and Japanese pages. The edits I made are completely in line with other wikis, and the name of the page directly corresponds to the name of the concept. Mikus ( talk) 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please reconsider your personal policy with regard to misleading or incorrect redirections of pharmaceuticals. It is a very dangerous practice to knowingly confuse two distinctly different molecules. Not only is this an ethical issue there could be a other repercussions that undermine the reputation of Wikipedia. Get some advice from a relevant health practitioner if you are not sure, I certainly did. Dsmatthews ( talk) 04:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
What do you think about the article so far? I divided it into sections. However, I do need help with the characteristic section. Anything I can add in the section (if so, feel free to bullet list it). Just curious. LovelyGirl7 talk 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian. I noticed you've extensively contributed to a number of high-quality astronomy articles. If you'd be interested in putting any through external peer review and academic publication, let me know. The WikiJournal of Science dual-publishes articles both as a stable PDF, and into Wikipedia to benefit from the rigours of formal peer review, as well as the extreme reach of the encyclopedia (e.g. The Cerebellum). Anyway, let me know if you're interested. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 06:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for Capella, "the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. Sorry for my edits on VY Canis Majoris and List of largest stars. I didn't move VY CMa to the top because I wanted but because there is a paper claiming this star as the largest known star but it supports the 1420±120 R☉.
In addition, the papers (possibly not all) are more reliable than Wikipedia and the websites that quote it. If the doc says VY CMa is the largest, it could still be the largest. As for example, UY Scuti being the largest star is unreferenced (possibly WP:OR) and the sites saying it is the LS are not reliable as they quote Wikipedia as a reliable source. So, that might be a reason why we have to move VY Canis Majoris to the top. Should we move VY CMa to the top with the former 1,800–2,100 R☉ (1,708 < 2,100) or it stays at the same top as KY Cygni (1,420)? ZaperaWiki44( ✉/ Contribs) 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize from the incorrect edit, I misread the article, I immediately reverted from a computer at the same time you did as I noticed my mistake immediately. I will refrain from editing without solid information on the subject. I wish to ensure that this is not seen as vandalism but an attempt to make a correct contribution. Please revise my edits, referring to "continues" and "This data is from", Is this gramatically correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.1.76 ( talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Could I prevail on you to give me a quick sanity check on this edit to 26 Draconis? I added a comment about a week ago in the Talk:26 Draconis page, but evidently nobody is watching it. So I was bold and made a questionable edit. I'm somewhat leery of committing the cardinal sin of WP:OR here, saying a cited source is incorrect, so I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes. I've found multiple sources for coordinates of 26 Draconis and Gliese 685, all with separations in the 12-14 arc minute range. At least some of the variance is the different epoch for the sources, the original Hipparcos values are somewhat different than the Hipparcos II values available on Vizier.
Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 00:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest shown for articles about Slavic spirits. I have been trying to sketch a way to put an order into all those small, badly written, and totally unsourced articles. I invite you to take part in the discussions which are unfolding here.-- Eckhardt Etheling ( talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you propose I move/redirect CSDP to Common Security and Defence Policy? I had already proposed the move at the CSDP page's talk page. - Ssolbergj ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw your contributions on RSGC1 where you added the 363,000 L☉ for RSGC1-F02 for example but I cannot see this value in the paper (It says log(Lbol/L⊙) = 5.56). It was probably calculated from a certain method (not by radius and temperature). Maybe you know how to do and I (really) need the formula how to calculate it to improve the Westerlund 1 page. 88.188.215.39 ( talk) 09:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, ISO currency code, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 09:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I got a notification that, "The page Vaginal intercourse has been reviewed." Sorry to bother you, but the notification gives little to no information and I'm curious. Vaginal intercourse is a redirect that has been around since 2005. I don't know whether the page was inspected, surveyed, examined, or critically evaluated. Wikipedia:Reviewing has eleven internal links. Would you mind telling me about your review? Hyacinth ( talk) 02:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You undid my correction to the distance to the LMC. I'd like to argue against that.
On page 690 of the "The Hubble Constant" (2010) citation there is a reference to a 2006 calculation that agrees with 18.41 (±0.1), however in section 13.1.5, on page 684 in the last paragraph it clearly states "The W(V,VI) Wesenheit function gives a minimized fit between the Galactic and the LMC Cepheids corresponding to a true distance modulus of μ(LMC)o = 18.44 ± 0.03 mag. Correcting for metallicity (see Section 3.1.3) would decrease this to 18.39 mag. [...] a newly revised systematic error on the distance to the LMC of 3% (or ± 0.06 mag)"
Unless I am sorely mistaken this suggests that the newer measurement is indeed 18.39±0.06 and you are incorrect to suggest that the value is acceptable at 18.41.
Regardless, 18.39±0.06 entirely falls into the error margin of the 2006 value.
If newer data is available elsewhere that counteracts this and supports 18.41 then I'll accept that, but for now, I believe the change is in error and I implore you to read the relevant sections of the journal.
Finally, you claimed the abstract of the source being discussed contains the 18.41 value and this is a wholly false claim. The abstract on the front page of the copy of the document I retrieved from annualreviews.org (requires institutional sign-in) makes no reference to the LMC at all, speaking only on the Hubble constant. 51.9.11.10 ( talk) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. there,The problem is that Moa-priset is a separate article but it has been simply redireced to another article by changing the path, what is your suggestion? SalmanZ ( talk) 14:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Heya, can you point me to where you got the Gaia DR2 data for this star? I've trolled through VizieR for a while and can't find anything that matches properly. That change in parallax changes the distance upwards by almost four times... — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand that there is no DR1 information on KH15D, but the Gaia website ( https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Miscellaneous/sec_credit_and_citation_instructions/) states:
"If you have used Gaia DR2 data in your research, please cite both the Gaia mission paper and the Gaia DR2 release paper:
• Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016): Description of the Gaia mission (spacecraft, instruments, survey and measurement principles, and operations); • Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018b): Summary of the contents and survey properties."
I'm only following the rules when I added back the "gaia ref1"
Thank you, as always, for cleaning up my mistakes on pages like PDS 70. I had one question for you - I've noticed a couple of times now that you use HotCat to add a single category, and do this multiple times (for multiple edits). Genuinely out of curiosity, why do you do this instead of adding all 3-5 and then saving the page at once? Primefac ( talk) 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Dean9901 has again moved the Alpha Herculis article to Rasalgethi (binary) as a minor edit (! - that shouldn't be allowed), despite your earlier reversal etc. I tried to undo it myself, but was unable to "because it involves content outside the main slot", whatever that means. How do we escalate this to get it reversed? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
While Etymology of Szczecin was (for a short time) an article, I nominated it for deletion, but while I was filling the Twinkle nomination you reverted it back to the redirect, and now the nomination article has a redirect as a target. Would you mind if I restore the article text so that we could properly discuss how much the article is appropriate and whether it needs to be redirected? I tried to speedy my nomination, but already one user commented, and it is not anymore possible. Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hei Lithopsian, the page Bilingualism exist in other wikis. Please, add references and sources, but do not reverse unnecessarily these editions. Rodinelson Nivaeldo da Silva ( talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Good morning, Lithopsian. I saw your reversion at my edit in Constellation. You justified it as being "almost unintelligible". Were you referring to the part "separated by archs of right ascensions and declinations and grouped by asterisms of their historically most important stars"? Because if it is so, it is not "unintelligible": it is the scientific concept of constellation in an astrophysicist's terms. If there's any problem with my English, I fully welcome grammar corrections. But if the misunderstandings were related to the terminology, then they're unjustified, because they're correct and were simply even copied from another article (and properly sourced). If you were referring to neither of these, then what part of my edition did you find "unintelligible"? Thanks for your attention. EleassarBR ( talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir Lithopsian, This page refers to a recent discovery made and published, on magnetic fields using the device ferrolens and is apart from the ferrolens page because its potential significance for physics in general and academic research and development.
It suggests the discovery of magnetic monopoles in essence inside every magnet. This is important and the Wikipedia community must be aware and can not be dismissed from this information. This page deserves its own space and I was in the process to evolve and expand it.
Please reinstate and revert the page "Quantum field of magnet" in its previous state.
If the revert will not be undertaken by the Senior editor or contacted by him/her in the next 6hours period I will revert the page so it can be further edited and expanded in the near future. I will keep the physics-stub category though until the page is expanded sufficiently.
Kind Regards,
Markoulw
Markoulw ( talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Threats, nice. That's not how WP works, I'm afraid. You are welcome to revert changes made by any other editor, but the recommended course of action is bold, revert, discuss and not edit war - in other words, when someone reverts one of your edits, don't get into a war about it, but open the subject for discussion. The correct place for such discussion is the article talk page, although the talk page of a newly-created article is unlikely to be visited. A more formal approach would be to reinstate the article and open an AfD, a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Possible outcomes would include a redirect rather than an outright delete - or keeping the article. Before going that way, you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's definition of notability which may not conicide with your own personal feelings or the normal expectations in your field. Just for the record, please read WP:COI and consider its implications for you, as explained in more detail at the top of your talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Senior Editor Lithopsian,
No. Respect. I was merely waiting for your response to my explanations of why this separate page is important before I do anything. Sorry, to see that you feel that you were threatened by me . On the contrary my intentions were to respect your decision and wait for your reconsideration after the explanations I have given to you, but I can not wait indefinitely. I now have an expanded version of the page "Quantum field of magnet" I will update it with and kindly ask you to review and reconsider.
Kind Regards,
Markoulw Markoulw ( talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI, your recent edit with citation bot assistance produced reductive useless title information, [11]. I've filed a bug report against that error at citation bot. Obviously "A 2-3 billion year old major merger paradigm for the Andromeda galaxy and its outskirts" is not the same as "OUP accepted manuscript", in identifying the journal article being sought. -- 65.94.42.168 ( talk) 05:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you move Rat-shot to Snake shot? I have been unable to do so.-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, could I get your opinion about something? Over at Luhman 16, an editor inserted a personally created image of its proper motion, which works great for that section, but the user insists that it must be the lead image, and is warring to keep it there. I rather feel that the resolved image of the stars themselves is the best representative image for the article. I'm obviously involved at this point and can't take administrative action myself, so I was wondering your thoughts, whether I should pursue this or just give up. — Huntster ( t @ c) 11:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted your edit that removed the article stub I wrote about the soccer coach Gene Klein. I've gone ahead and fixed all links within Wikipedia that link to Gene Klein instead of Eugene V. Klein, and there is also a hatnote on the Gene Klein article pointing to the Eugene V. Klein. However, it's possible that there needs to be a discussion about which person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Gene Klein". Because the businessman's article was titled "Eugene V. Klein", I assumed that "Gene Klein" was just an occasionally-used nickname for him, but I don't know much about him so I'd welcome a move discussion. But, the soccer coach article definitely should continue to exist somewhere -- having coached the fully-professional team Pittsburgh Riverhounds for five years, he definitely passes WP:NFOOTY. Cheers, IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you undid my edit removing the redirect from Wafa field to Waha field. I realize that deleting the redirect leaves Wafa field as a blank page, which is apparently why you undid my edit — but having the first page redirect to the second is incorrect, as they're completely different, and in different parts of Libya (I made this edit because I'm doing oil & gas research work and the fact that the first page redirects to the second screwed me up for like 20 minutes, because I was operating under the mistaken assumption that the two were the same). I don't have time to create a new page for Wafa field — what would be the correct thing to do here? delete the page Wafa field, so that any links to the page are redlinks? CircleAdrian ( talk) 14:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, this is an urgent message the userpage titled User:Joey717. On User:Joey717 there is a category located in the bottom titled Category:People from Winnipeg. Categories are not allowed to add on userpages under WP:USERNOCAT. So go to the user page titled User:Joey717 and remove the People from Winnipeg category. Category are not allowed to add on userpages. This is an urgent message. please do that immediately. Thanks. 2001:569:7C07:2600:C084:6CAA:20CB:AAE ( talk) 02:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
If you review drafts, could you please approve that one? Thank you very much. Joey717 ( talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
What did you mean by 'hardly' when you reverted my edit? 92.17.89.71 ( talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so first off, you said that the 1,180 SR estimate for Beetleguese is an "older value" when it's from 2013. The 955 SR estimate is from 2011. Also, you keep changing HR 5171 A back to 1,315 SR when it's most recently estimated as a 1,490 SR red Super giant. I'll say this one last time. Always go with the smallest value of the most recent estimate. That's all JayKayXD ( talk) 11:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I notice you haven't checked the list of star extremes page in some time, can you go and see to check if it is accurate. Zapera has put VY CMa as the largest which is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faren29 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Noticed NGC 136 is looking rather bare. Can you help me add some stuff to it. AdrianWikiEditor ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the time being for reverting OpenID Foundation page to a redirect page. I started splitting OpenID page as it is messy and too long and making the change to OpenID Foundation to be an independent page rather than a redirect was an attempt but the OpenID page got reverted so OpenID Foundation page became redundant. -- Sakimura ( talk) 18:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Polyamorph. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Prayagraj District, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Polyamorph ( talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you ever have a hankering to buff another star article like Eta Carinae? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. There’s an AfD on Anthony Padilla that could use your participation, as you were involved in the article's redirect. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Padilla Sekyaw (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Wanted to drop a more personal note here and just say that I really appreciate your guidance as I start on the Starbox project. I really need guidance from someone who knows their stuff when it comes to stars and you definitely seem to know a few things. :-p Hopeful that we will be able to team up on this! -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this page. As a very new contributor apart from very old minor edits i would appreciate your review as to its "artistic qualities" as per german wikipedia which is why it is currently a candidate for deletion. Also whether it is in fact neutral. it is my most genuine thorough attempt to be as neutral as possible, which is why I did not put the JAMA quotes to begin with. However they appear to have been necessary to neutralise the article. There are opposing points of view (everyone has bipolar namely) but this is debunked in consensus in Canada and the United States. I note that there has been no edit war engaging this "neutrality for neutralitys sake", and the cognitive biases including "point/counterpoint" and "misleading balance" may come into play here. I really don't want this to occur. I'm very thankful that it so far hasn't. This is why I directly point to the guideline controversy and legal controversy in Australia, and point to the not for profit in Canada who came up with all these controversial "appearing to have been right the whole time" theories. Any thoughts most welcome E.3 ( talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, I'm Doomsdayer520. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Turkish occupied Syria, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Workplace Health and Safety Directive, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 12:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lithopsian: Previously there was a whole article on the Burmese Independence Army (which now redirects to Burma National Army) and a whole article on Burma National Army (which Burma Independence Army redirected too). These two articles covered the exactly same topic of the BIA (later renamed the BNA). I previously simply merged and expanded them under the title Burma Independence Army and made Burmese Independence Army and Burma National Army redirect to it. However I keep being reverted. I tried to move the article in the proper way, but cant since Burma Independence Army already exists as a page. What should I do? -- Havsjö ( talk) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I put in under Burma Independence Army since the organisations most active period and the focus of the article lay on the BIA -- Havsjö ( talk) 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not discuss on the talk page? I'm not communicating via edit comments. Hekerui ( talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Per this change, it's not clear to me that "relating to a place on the other side of the world" is the dominant meaning of "antipodean". At least on Wikipedia, the dominant meaning, if there is one, seems to be "relating to Australia and New Zealand". Of the links pointing to Antipodean (which you mentioned), it looks like every one of them is directly in reference to Australia and New Zealand. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Why. You made this edit [12] wrongly stating: "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation." Yet when I corrected this text "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni ( ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori. [1]". You now claim; "remove misunderstanding again after it was previously reverted", and [User:|151.230.113.97] claims "remove Simbad-specific codename."
Even if you doubt the SIMBAD Vizier data, the name appears here [13]
You wrote the initial text, I correct it, but you now you claim it is not needed?
Either get consensus, revert your edit, or we'll start investigating clear evidence of disruptive editing. 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Yeah... But please have in mind Talk:Satmar too. -- תנא קמא ( talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
A quasi-star is predicted to have formed when the core of a large protostar collapses into a black hole during its formation and the outer layers of the star are massive enough to absorb the resulting burst of energy without being blown away (as they are with modern supernovae). Such a star would have to be at least 1,000 solar masses (2.0×1033 kg). A quasi-star is predicted to have had a maximum lifespan of about 7 million years, [1] after which the core black hole would have grown to about 1,000–10,000 solar masses (2×1033–2×1034 kg).
References
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|